Quit blaming a cabinet for shutting down a few coal mines and giving union members the vote on strikes rather than just the leaders.

Miners and their problems have one person to blame, Arthur Scargill.

Mrs T G-d rest her beautiful soul turned Britain from the laughing stock of Europe into a major force.

She has been voted a better leader than Churchill, I agree she was.

^ People like to blame her for her harsh decisions, whilst completely forgetting who the REAL problem was with in the first place. People like Scargill and the other union bosses were the REAL problem; and it was they that Maggie broke.

People like to blame her for her harsh decisions, whilst completely forgetting who the REAL problem was with in the first place. People like Scargill and the other union bosses were the REAL problem; and it was they that Maggie broke.

The ones who are vocal are the ones who were duped, or those who received their opinions from them. I can empathise fully, but they were duped by Scargill and his bullies into accepting Thatcher as the problem. Thatcher was the solution!

It's my view that she isn't anywhere near the great leader that her idolises make her out to be. It is evident she was on the wrong side of history on many issues. My earlier remarks were more a statement of frustration than anything else.

But that's my point, you reacted emotionally rather than rationally.

I don't understand why all of a sudden you are opposing profanity. I always read, and at times agree with, your posts & I don't recall you raising such opposition to profanity in the past. I find it peculiar that in this topic, concerning this leader, you take issue with it.

I frequently criticise people for resorting to profanity. There is simply no need for it in a mature and rational discussion.

If you don't want to use profanity, more power to you. If you wish to be verbose and blather on for an entire sentence for which one word, let's say bull****, would be entirely sufficient, you're welcome to.

As I said earlier, profanity only serves to undermine the point one makes. It does nothing to support one's statement.

Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler were true to their convictions too. (I am NOT comparing Thatcher to any of those leaders, I am simply attempting to demonstrating a principle) Do you admire any of those leaders because they stood by their convictions, despite the harm and misery they caused?

Do I admire their convictions? No, because they were responsible for the death and suffering of millions. Do I respect some of their social achievements and leadership skills? Yes. It's far too simplistic to dismiss such people as evil dictators and it does a disservice to society. I've talked to several of my German friends about Hitler over the years and while none supported him they did give me a different impression of who he was and of why people looked up to him. Hitler and Stalin were widely respected and people—especially in the west—should be taught why that was. That's what annoys me about the criticism of Thatcher - by all means despise her and criticise her but do so for the right reasons (and there are plenty of them). Profanity laden personal attacks only serve to discredit the person making them.

Anyway, I think this has gone a bit wayward. You still haven't explained why you despise her. You called her a "miserable elitist" yet offered no explanation for why that is; you called her "heartless" but without any justification; you claimed she was on the "wrong side of history on many issues" yet haven't named a single one of the issues. We get that you don't like her but you haven't explained why.